On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Luke Zarko <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure if we can rely on Locker or not-- ideally we could, but are any > existing users using V8 with multiple threads without Locker and instead > relying on their own synchronization?
If there are, they're doing it wrong: we require using Locker/Unlocker so that we can properly manage the thread state. -- Vitaly > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Vitaly Repeshko <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > http://codereview.chromium.org/2847048/diff/11001/12004 >> > File src/isolate.h (right): >> > >> > http://codereview.chromium.org/2847048/diff/11001/12004#newcode380 >> > src/isolate.h:380: static Isolate* Current() { >> > On 2010/07/05 16:17:21, Vitaly wrote: >> >> >> >> Two questions: >> >> 1. Can we set the TLS in our static initializer? (To avoid checking >> > >> > for NULL >> >> >> >> here.) >> >> 2. Can we use two TLS keys: isolate and all other stuff? (To avoid >> > >> > extra >> >> >> >> indirection.) >> > >> > 1- AFAIK no, because we need to be able to set it for other threads too >> > (and because the API doesn't require threads other than the one that ran >> > the static initializer to make any special calls before they start using >> > V8). >> >> Hmm, can't we rely on Locker's constructor being called? >> >> > 2- I don't see why not; I'll update the change. >> >> Great! >> >> > http://codereview.chromium.org/2847048/show >> >> >> Thanks, >> Vitaly > > -- > v8-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
